Science Deniers are Everywhere

Yes, it's possible to change my mind. And the minds of many people. It seems I use a more restrictive definition of denier than you do. To me, it's a specific pattern of behavior geared to avoiding a certain facet of reality. E.g. there's an element of fanatism, and thus of proselytism most often. There's a difference between holding opinion X, however unscientific, and obsessivey trying to spread opinion x.

Here is a bunch of math that has no one has a complete understanding of...

...yes yes they are but you guys in the states win the league!

This definition of "denier" is too subjective... you can call anyone you disagree with a "denier". It is a label that says more about you than it does about them.

I don't see anything in this definition that means that people can't change (something that I think you claim is true). Nor do I see why someone who doesn't accept the science behind GMOs has anything in common with a Holocaust denier. One is a health nut while the other is often connected to White supremacy.

People are complex. There are otherwise normal people who believe homeopathy can cure cancer, or deny climate change or believe non-organic food will kill their family. There are political beliefs, from feminism to gun rights, that cause people to accept ideas in spite of facts to the contrary.

The ability to question your own beliefs, and to challenge your own ideology, is a rare skill... yet I think it is important. Throwing mud at the other side is easy. but not very useful.

In the US we have two competing political ideologies. Each side is sure that they are right. Each side bends or ignores any evidence (scientific or otherwise) that doesn't support their pre-existing beliefs.

The more people who challenge the flaws and excesses of their own ideology, the more we can break through these bubbles. The posts on this thread are going in the opposite direction.

Good golly Gent, that list is so long it must mean math is just a made up joke.
It's a list of unsolved problems. What's your point? Did you assume we were all done? That everything is known? Of course there is a list of unsolved problems, it doesn't mean math is unreliable or unknowable or flawed. It just means we're still learning. I would be horrified if there was nothing on the list. Oh, and scroll to the bottom of the page and you'll see another list titled "problems solved since 1995". Before 1995 these were unsolved math problems, but guess what? someone solved them. It's called progress. Advancement. Development. Learning.

My point?

Math only works sometimes.

You should show your father-in-law some respect. He's as entitled to his view as you are yours. Go walk in his boots for as long as he did before badmouthing your wife's dad.

Probably on one of your authored threads. I remember being astounded.

Are you serious?
I did show respect by not ripping him a new one, as I explained earlier.
So in another 27 years I get to bad mouth him? How does that make any sense?

When I worked in laboratories, lotta years, people I worked with had varied political views, but there weren't hostilities such as we see on a2k. Boss and some other docs were Repubs. On the other hand, Mickey, a doc, had been a conscience objector, and Fred was of the twelve who tried to stop UCLA.
Another doc was a true storymaster.
Little of all this was discussed in the work day at any length, at least not to contretemps level.

You don't understand.

Maybe you should start by defining "denier". You use the term way too feeely. For me it takes more than disagreeing with me to be a denier. One has to aggressively oppose and even misrepresent the scientific consensus about a topic to be called a science denier.

To me it's a special category of people.

Ignorance should not be respected. You've shown him more than enough respect. Pay no attention to McG, he's one of those old gits who complains about young people all the time. Just being old does warrant respect, it's what you've done and how you behave to others.

Last time I checked it was still undergoing trials at IRRI in the Philippines, and behaving quite poorly in them. They haven't yet applied for certification. So no, this variety has NOT saved half a million children every year since its introduction, because it has NOT been introduced yet.

Yes. Scumbags get old, so do we respect them for it? No.

Yes. Btw I made a typo in my last post I meant to say just being old does not deserve respect.

I wish to make it clear that the quoted remark about golden rice was not mine. As I understand it, it is still under development and evaluation. The Indian Vandana Shiva, who is against it, says the problem is not the plant per se, but potential problems with poverty and loss of biodiversity. Shiva claims these problems could be amplified by the corporate control of agriculture, and that by focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), golden rice proponents are obscuring the limited availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate food.

Apologies, my response should have been addressed to Set.

The points made by Vandana Shiva are IMO valid. Yes, good nutrition implies diet diversity, first and foremost. This said, a new rice variety with improved nutrition benefits would be welcome, if it would have a competitive yield as compared to other varieties; and if it was proven that this added vitamine A can survive long storage periods (typical of cereals, as opposed to fruits and vegetables which are perishable) and normal cooking (boiling) process. None of these conditions is met yet.

I hate it when I stumble across and inadvertently read one of Olive Tree's posts. He i consistently full of poop. If there is a real science denier here, it's him, especially in consideration the large number of bullshit claims he has made, and his appalling ignorance of scientific basics.

In 2009, results of a clinical trial of golden rice with adult volunteers from the US were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The trial concluded that "beta carotene derived from golden rice is effectively converted to vitamin A in humans". A summary for the American Society for Nutrition suggested that "Golden Rice could probably supply 50% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin A from a very modest amount — perhaps a cup — of rice, if consumed daily. This amount is well within the consumption habits of most young children and their mothers".

It is well known that beta carotene is found and consumed in many nutritious foods eaten around the world, including fruits and vegetables. Beta carotene in food is a safe source of vitamin A.

The Food Allergy Resource and Research Program of the University of Nebraska undertook research in 2006 that showed the proteins from the new genes in golden rice showed no allergenic properties.

In August 2012, Tufts University and others published research on golden rice in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showing that the beta carotene produced by golden rice is as effective as beta carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children. The study stated that "recruitment processes and protocol were approved". In 2015 the journal retracted the study, claiming that the researchers had acted unethically when providing Chinese children golden rice without their parents' consent.

That is from the well-sourced Wikipedia article. I'll take their word over that of Olive Tree, a bullshit artists who, I suspect, just makes it up as he goes along.

Ok so there's 1 (one) study that has been done with 5 (five) subjects, each eating one serving of GR once... Booh to me for not knowing about it.

Still, it's only one study. With only five dudes eating one serving of GR once... Many more research seems in order. E.g. diets rich in carotenoids could lead to other problems.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194525

Human nature is such that intolerance of new and unfamiliar ideas affects most people, sometimes wisely so, and sometimes inappropriately. It's generally very hard to distinguish the fools from the skeptics in these things - at least by the standards I've seen here from Oliver and others. Copernicus and Galileo were "deniers" of the then Aristotelian 'scientific consensus of their day. It turns out they were right but it was the educated elite of the day who opposed them.

When the early geologists in the late 19th century first began speculating about the then thought billion plus year age of the earth, based largely on fossil discoveries in the Scottish highlands and other areas, one of the foremost physicists of the Day, William, Townsend, or Lord Kelvin, stubbornly rebuked them, refusing to accept their hypotheses because as he then argued the sun powered by gravitational collapse as was then thought couldn't possibly last that long by his calculations. My point here is that the collection of so called "deniers" also includes both important innovators in science, and other scientists who resisted them.

In today's world there appears to be several odd juxtapositions of attitudes regarding current issues among that may suggest motivations other than an affection for science.. For example opponents of scientifically produced GM foods very often are also supporters of restrictions on the use of fossil fuels based on the supposed 'scientific consensus' on AGW, suggesting either a selective adherence to current scientific innovations or, more likely,some other motivations largely unrelated to the science itself.

I believe the AGW issue is so contentious because contemporary zealots demand drastic measures based on current technology for emission free power, but appear to take no responsibility for the economic and human consequences of what they propose or consider the tradeoff involving the use of technologies such as nuclear power. Meanwhile the governments of the world piously sign agreements committing themselves to goals they do not achieve while professing allegiance to the doctrines of the intolerant zealots who amuse themselves castigating the "deniers".